Muralidhar cited the Supreme Court’s inaction on the suo motu contempt petition against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, filed after the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. “It was not taken up for 22 years. And then when it was listed before Justice (Sanjay) Kaul it was said; why flog a dead horse. This is institutional amnesia, which in my view is unforgivable, of an act which the Supreme Court found was an egregious crime,” he said.
He also cited the Ayodhya judgment of 2019, arguing that the Court went beyond the scope of the suits before it.
“No one had asked for the construction of a temple. Directions under Article 142 were issued; no one asked for it, no legal basis, no prayer, hence no opposition. No central government or Hindu group lawyer had asked for it,” he said. The ruling, he added, “was completely outside the realm of the suits” and its fallout continues to affect the courts.
11/09/2025
Referring indirectly to former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, widely regarded as the Ayodhya verdict’s author, he observed: “It was an author-less judgment but the author himself said he consulted the deity before (delivering) it,” reported Indian Express.